State of the race, mid September

[Leftfield 2,595]

9 hours ago, bigbird said:

How much of a toss up would TX be if it wasn't Trump? Do you think it's more a shift left or a vote against Trump?

Not Travis, but the state overall.

A bit of both. I think it's more a vote against Trump, but the urban areas of Texas are gaining population rapidly.

The population is shifting across the country, though. More and more people are living in population centers. Those people tend to be more liberal-leaning because many liberal policies work better in those environments. The problem is, that creates tunnel vision and sight is lost of the areas that really don't need or prefer those policies. That tunnel vision leads many to assume that policies that work on local and even state levels translate well to the federal level.

This is why I think the electoral college is a good thing:  it helps protect the country from the authority of mob rule. We were not meant to be a pure democracy. No, the system isn't perfect, and as I'm sure everyone here realizes I am vehemently anti-Trump, but at the same time those that are arguing against the electoral college seem to forget that politics ebbs and flows. I do think that many on the side of eliminating the electoral college would have a different view on the other side of it.

[bigbird 60,513]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

A bit of both. I think it's more a vote against Trump, but the urban areas of Texas are gaining population rapidly.

The population is shifting across the country, though. More and more people are living in population centers. Those people tend to be more liberal-leaning because many liberal policies work better in those environments. The problem is, that creates tunnel vision and sight is lost of the areas that really don't need or prefer those policies. That tunnel vision leads many to assume that policies that work on local and even state levels translate well to the federal level.

This is why I think the electoral college is a good thing:  it helps protect the country from the authority of mob rule. We were not meant to be a pure democracy. No, the system isn't perfect, and as I'm sure everyone here realizes I am vehemently anti-Trump, but at the same time those that are arguing against the electoral college seem to forget that politics ebbs and flows. I do think that many on the side of eliminating the electoral college would have a different view on the other side of it.

Thanks for the well stated response

[SLAG-91 1,483]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

A bit of both. I think it's more a vote against Trump, but the urban areas of Texas are gaining population rapidly.

The population is shifting across the country, though. More and more people are living in population centers. Those people tend to be more liberal-leaning because many liberal policies work better in those environments. The problem is, that creates tunnel vision and sight is lost of the areas that really don't need or prefer those policies. That tunnel vision leads many to assume that policies that work on local and even state levels translate well to the federal level.

This is why I think the electoral college is a good thing:  it helps protect the country from the authority of mob rule. We were not meant to be a pure democracy. No, the system isn't perfect, and as I'm sure everyone here realizes I am vehemently anti-Trump, but at the same time those that are arguing against the electoral college seem to forget that politics ebbs and flows. I do think that many on the side of eliminating the electoral college would have a different view on the other side of it.

Now who can argue with THAT?

Scalability of certain policies is very, very difficult indeed.

I am a fan of ranked-choice voting, for instance, but don't think that would work well on a national level...pretty good for local elections, though.

Maine Senate race will be an interesting watch, and not just for how RCV impacts it.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 hours ago, bigbird said:

How much of a toss up would TX be if it wasn't Trump? Do you think it's more a shift left or a vote against Trump?

Not Travis, but the state overall.

Both.  I think it would be a 4-5 comfortable win for a "normal" Republican, but it's also undeniable that the demographics of this state are changing dramatically and fast.  I fully expect the Texas House to go Democratic next week.

[bigbird 60,513]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Both.  I think it would be a 4-5 comfortable win for a "normal" Republican, but it's also undeniable that the demographics of this state are changing dramatically and fast.  I fully expect the Texas House to go Democratic next week.

I've seen a shift here also. Would you say the shift you're seeing is towards the progressive sanders/warren side or more towards the Clinton/Obama/Biden side?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

I've seen a shift here also. Would you say the shift you're seeing is towards the progressive sanders/warren side or more towards the Clinton/Obama/Biden side?

Depends on where you are.  In Austin proper, definitely the more liberal wing of Sanders/Warren.  But in the burbs where I live, it's far more of the Obama/Biden voter (myself included in that block).

However in this election, I think you're seeing a unified Democratic party thanks to their disdain for Trump + a ton of swing/centrist voters who may split their ticket.  It's why the gap between Trump and Biden here is smaller than that of Cornyn and Hagar.  Lots of folks voting Biden for POTUS because they simply don't like Trump but still want Republicans in Congress so they'll go R's down ballot.

I'm really fascinated by three things this year in Texas:

- Total voter turnout.  It's going to be the highest ever in this state by a mile.

- Can Biden actually take the state?  If turnout numbers stay ridiculously high in Harris, Travis, Dallas, Tarrant, Williamson, Bexar, and Hays counties, it's very possible.

- Will the Texas House flip Democratic?  Also a very real possibility that would be huge considering it's a census election and thus redistricting maps are drawn.  Also would break up the Republican monopoly on state politics.

[bigbird 60,513]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Will the Texas House flip Democratic?  Also a very real possibility that would be huge considering it's a census election and thus redistricting maps are drawn.  Also would break up the Republican monopoly on state politics.

That would definitely help push legalization/expanded medicinal coverage which would help our family tremendously. 

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Total voter turnout.  It's going to be the highest ever in this state by a mile.

It's been pretty fascinating to watch.  I wish every election would have this type of participation. I hate listening to those that didn't vote bitch and moan about outcomes.

 

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Can Biden actually take the state?  If turnout numbers stay ridiculously high in Harris, Travis, Dallas, Tarrant, Williamson, Bexar, and Hays counties, it's very possible

I think he can, but like you said, I don't think he'd be able to against another R...yet.  There has been a very large migration from the west coast into the DFW area. Combine that with the shifting demographics from Brownsville to Corpus to San Antonio and I could easily see it happening in the next 10-20 years, if not sooner.

 

A topic for another time that would be interesting is, how will both parties shift and move forward after a Texas flip. In the future, if Texas was to consistently vote Blue and the left charged further left, would we possibly see the rise of a more centrist 3rd party?

[Leftfield 2,595]

5 hours ago, bigbird said:

....would we possibly see the rise of a more centrist 3rd party?

Not sure we're that lucky!

[McLoofus 35,182]

15 hours ago, bigbird said:

Yeah, I know I do. Objectivity. You should try it.

Seems we're both guilty of making false assumptions.

Quote

Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn't I? Political leanings and opinions are fluid. They may not change quickly, but for many, they change.

Perhaps I was wrong about your intentions, but I won't beat myself up about it. ICHY endorsed at least some part of my prior response, so I'm not the only one who has noticed your persistence on this matter.

Quote

There are things I agree with Biden on.

There are things I agree with Trump on.

Unlike many here, I don't base my political views and opinions based on a particular party.

Cool. That makes two of us + several others.

Quote

How was it leading?

Because of the words you used to ask the question?

Quote

Does he think there has been a shift in Texas or is the close race due to it being against Trump? That's not leading.

The initial question to Brad wasn't leading him anywhere. It was valuing his opinion and firsthand knowledge from the region of the state in which he lives. Each region in Texas is as diverse as the landscape. What I am seeing in and around Houston may or may not be what he is experiencing in and around Austin. That's why I asked Brad.

Understood.

Quote

As far as your thoughts on my opinion about the election goes, many of the other nonlinetoeing posters agree that, for many, this vote will be a referendum on Trump and not necessarily on policy or ideology. Sorry that bothers you.

That fact doesn't bother me. It's that you can't help but bring it into every conversation. 

Not sure who the "nonlinetoeing" comment is supposed to indict. Sure as hell hope you're not trying to point that at me.

[bigbird 60,513]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It's that you can't help but bring it into every conversation. 

I've brought it up in two threads, weeks apart. I've had many conversations in between that weren't pertaining to that at all. I think if you're willing to look, you'll realize that that particular characterization is off.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, bigbird said:

I've brought it up in two threads, weeks apart. I've had many conversations in between that weren't pertaining to that at all. I think if you're willing to look, you'll realize that that particular characterization is off.

It's been more than two threads but I am guilty of letting my preoccupation with that cloud my knowledge- and I do know- that you are coming from a very thoughtful, informed and curious place. For that I apologize.

I've enjoyed the subsequent exchange that you initiated. Going way off track, I sure as hell hope I die in a country where families don't get $4 million bills for non-elective health care. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

8 hours ago, bigbird said:

A topic for another time that would be interesting is, how will both parties shift and move forward after a Texas flip. In the future, if Texas was to consistently vote Blue and the left charged further left, would we possibly see the rise of a more centrist 3rd party?

No reason to quote everything else as it's pretty spot on, though I would add that west coast migration here also extends down to Austin/San Antonio.

I don't know that a 3rd party would rise up so much as the Republican party would revert back to being more centrist.  I think if Trump loses and takes the Senate with him, along with a bunch of state houses, that you'll see a rush for politicians on the right to gain control over that "traditional" conservative mantle in the form of Reagan/Bush.

[Leftfield 2,595]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't know that a 3rd party would rise up so much as the Republican party would revert back to being more centrist.  I think if Trump loses and takes the Senate with him, along with a bunch of state houses, that you'll see a rush for politicians on the right to gain control over that "traditional" conservative mantle in the form of Reagan/Bush.

Wish this could be the case, but it's becoming increasingly unlikely. Everything is now so polarized that a conservative candidate, unless they're already popular, probably can't get out of the primaries unless they are fairly far right or pretend to be. If they pretend and then try to swing to the center during the general election, it'll be used against them and a good portion of their base may not turn out to vote. With the popular vote going to the Democrats in most of the recent elections, that's something a Republican candidate can't afford.

[bigbird 60,513]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I would add that west coast migration here also extends down to Austin/San Antonio.

Why do you think there has been such an influx the last 3-4 years? There really has been a lot.

[McLoofus 35,182]

I wonder how much the current SCOTUS majority might affect future elections if the Dems either don't try or fail to stack the court? Now that it's so heavily conservative, will the GOP be disincentivized to be so aggressively partisan/obstructionist? 

Also, I think younger libs and conservatives alike are a little better informed and pragmatic about healthcare and student loans. I think they are more able to understand that everyone would benefit from a more social approach to those costs, and are a little less blinded by this blind worship of capitalism. We can have both and I think, or perhaps naively hope, that the next generation will understand that and stop looking at those as a partisan issue. 

At some point that will be the case for the environment, too. 

Abortion... yeah, that one's always going to be polarizing. 

[bigbird 60,513]

4 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

student loans

I completely understand and wish that the rising cost of education was reversed, but I don't look at college as right. I look at it and in turn student loans as an investment in one's self.  Yeah, it cost a chunk, but it also should lead to higher earning potential. If people don't want to assume that amount of debt, then there are many good professions available. 

 

I would like to see an investment into the trades and tech schools before I see an attempt at student loan reform. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

I completely understand and wish that the rising cost of education was reversed, but I don't look at college as right. I look at it and in turn student loans as an investment in one's self.  Yeah, it cost a chunk, but it also should lead to higher earning potential. If people don't want to assume that amount of debt, then there are many good professions available. 

I would like to see an investment into the trades and tech schools before I see an attempt at student loan reform. 

Those too, for sure. I consider them all to be secondary education, and I've begun looking at secondary education as an extension of primary education, which I do believe to be a right.

[Leftfield 2,595]

58 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Those too, for sure. I consider them all to be secondary education, and I've begun looking at secondary education as an extension of primary education, which I do believe to be a right.

The problem with saying that health care and education are "rights" is that by definition they must be provided. Who provides them? If you assume them to be rights it removes the onus on the individual to make an effort to be responsible about them. It also means government can dictate compensation for those who are providing them. Taken to its ultimate, a doctor can be told he must provide care for a patient even if the doctor is not compensated. There is no "right" to anything that takes away from the life, liberty, or property of another. 

We can still be a responsible society that helps provide education and health care without them being considered rights. Care has to be taken about unintended consequences, however. One of the main drivers of cost in health care is that most people never consider it because they have insurance. It's is seen by many as a pay-all, rather than providing a safety net for catastrophic circumstances as it was originally intended. Health insurance got a huge boost back in WWII when wages were frozen and companies began offering it to retain and attract employees, so it eventually became almost ubiquitous and costs have spiraled out of control.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

The problem with saying that health care and education are "rights" is that by definition they must be provided.

Lol. I suppose that's a "problem" in the literal sense, but since when do we as a country not try to solve problems? Either way, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Health care- literally the single most important thing a person can have after food- must be provided.

Quote

Who provides them?

Doctors and nurses. 

Quote

If you assume them to be rights it removes the onus on the individual to make an effort to be responsible about them.

That is an incorrect assumption. We're not talking about one's yard or car. We're talking about your health and your body. Also, it is already that way. It is a cultural problem. Ask any healthcare provider. 

Quote

It also means government can dictate compensation for those who are providing them. Taken to its ultimate, a doctor can be told he must provide care for a patient even if the doctor is not compensated.

Do we have an issue with military personnel or other government contractors not getting paid?

Quote

There is no "right" to anything that takes away from the life, liberty, or property of another. 

And yet, guns.

Quote

We can still be a responsible society that helps provide education and health care without them being considered rights.

I mean, we could be- not that I've seen a compelling case for them not to be considered such- but we're not and we're not even close to it. We are a purely capitalist society that literally ties one's right to live  a healthy life to their ability to not only work, but work one of a very specific, few types of jobs.

Quote

Care has to be taken about unintended consequences, however.

Totally agreed, always. But there's a difference between being cautious and prudent and preserving broken systems out of pure fear of change.

Quote

One of the main drivers of cost in health care is that most people never consider it because they have insurance. It's is seen by many as a pay-all, rather than providing a safety net for catastrophic circumstances as it was originally intended. Health insurance got a huge boost back in WWII when wages were frozen and companies began offering it to retain and attract employees, so it eventually became almost ubiquitous and costs have spiraled out of control.

And you're putting that on the patient as opposed to the insurance companies themselves? How about big pharma? You don't truly believe that the primary issue is patients getting care they don't need or actually using the benefits they pay for, do you? 

Apologies for the combative tone but I'm honestly quite taken aback by your response. 

Let me ask you this: Why do you think socialized medicine works so well in so many other countries? And, yes, I can say for a fact that I know several people who have moved to the US and who desperately miss the healthcare in their country of origin. And these were people who paid their fair share of taxes in both places. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, bigbird said:

Why do you think there has been such an influx the last 3-4 years? There really has been a lot.

Jobs.  Nothing more than that.  Tons of tech companies are popping up and bringing high paying jobs with them.  People follow opportunity, just like the gold rush in the 1840s.

In Austin metro alone, we have:

Dell HQ, Google, Facebook, Samsung, AMD HQ, Texas Instruments, Salesforce HQ, Microsoft, EA games, and tons more.

Also getting a new Apple Campus built and a Tesla plant.

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Jobs.  Nothing more than that.  Tons of tech companies are popping up and bringing high paying jobs with them.  People follow opportunity, just like the gold rush in the 1840s.

In Austin metro alone, we have:

Dell HQ, Google, Facebook, Samsung, AMD HQ, Texas Instruments, Salesforce HQ, Microsoft, EA games, and tons more.

Also getting a new Apple Campus built and a Tesla plant.

Have to imagine real estate is a lot cheaper. Certainly cheaper than the Bay Area, although it sounds like maybe with that growth the "much" qualifier might have to be dropped eventually. Taxes might be lower, too?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Have to imagine real estate is a lot cheaper. Certainly cheaper than the Bay Area, although it sounds like maybe with that growth the "much" qualifier might have to be dropped eventually. Taxes might be lower, too?

Taxes are definitely lower.  No state income tax here, though property taxes are reasonably high.

Real estate is much cheaper.  I just built a 2,400 square foot house in the suburbs last year.  Same house in the bay area would cost me over $1M easily.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Taxes are definitely lower.  No state income tax here, though property taxes are reasonably high.

Real estate is much cheaper.  I just built a 2,400 square foot house in the suburbs last year.  Same house in the bay area would cost me over $1M easily.

And by "Bay Area", you do in fact mean "area" and not even just SFO proper. But I get it. Hell of a lot of good stuff going on out there. 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, McLoofus said:

And by "Bay Area", you do in fact mean "area" and not even just SFO proper. But I get it. Hell of a lot of good stuff going on out there. 

 

Oh completely.  The Bay Area is so massive.  My cousin lives in Oakland.  Built a house on the outskirts of Oakland and needed $1M to do it.  Luckily they sold their old house for a monster profit.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

Oh completely.  The Bay Area is so massive.  My cousin lives in Oakland.  Built a house on the outskirts of Oakland and needed $1M to do it.  Luckily they sold their old house for a monster profit.

Sounds exactly like my buddies that moved out there. Every time a kid pops out, SFO becomes Oakland becomes whatever is just on the other side of Oakland, lol. I guess that's the story in most cities, but the math sure makes it feel different.